1995SCMR53 (PLP)
ADIL KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR53 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | ADIL KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR53 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR53 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR53 (PLP) (ADIL KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th July, 1993. .
- Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the first order passed by the learned Collector, rejecting the suit on the ground that it was deficiently stamped for the purposes of court‑fee was void and could be assailed in constitutional jurisdiction without the bar of limitation. It was further submitted that if the basic order was void and illegal the subsequent orders based thereon would be of no legal consequence.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑6‑1992, in W.P.1143/90). Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.115]‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Para. 25‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for pre emption on basis of tenancy rights in land in question‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit was dismissed by forums below as being deficiently stamped‑‑‑Board of Revenue, in revision decreed the suit on condition that plaintiff made up deficiency in court‑fee‑‑‑Defendant's Constitutional petition resulted in remanding case to Board of Revenue for determining whether revision filed before it was filed within limitation‑‑‑Board of Revenue while holding that revision was filed beyond period of limitation dismissed plaintiff's suit‑‑‑High Court maintained decision of Board of Revenue‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plaintiff's plea, in petition for leave to appeal was that Board of Revenue decided revision petition (before remand) on merits without any objection from contesting defendant in regard to question of limitation, therefore, delay if any in filing revision stood impliedly condoned and that plaintiff who succeeded in the decision of suit on merits could not be non‑suited by objection raised by defendant for the first time before High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider contention raised on behalf of plaintiff.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑Adil Khan, the predecessor‑in interest of the petitioners pre‑empted the sale of the suit land on the ground of being tenant thereof. The suit was contested but ultimately on 19‑9‑1980, it was decreed in his favour, by Collector Chakwal. The respondent No.4 riled an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi, which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Collector for determination of the question of deficiency of court‑fee paid by the petitioner. The Collector, Chakwal, dismissed the suit on 27‑2‑1983, holding that suit was deficiently stamped by the petitioner. The petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid order which was dismissed on 4‑8‑1982, by the Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi. The petitioner then filed a revision petition which was accepted on 7‑4‑1984, by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, holding that the petitioner was required to be given opportunity to make up the deficiency in court‑fee. He, therefore, decreed the suit provided the petitioner made up the deficiency in the court‑fee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition contending that the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner before the Member, Board of Revenue was barred by limitation. The Lahore High Court vide order dated 4‑2‑1989 accepted the Writ Petition and remanded the case to the learned Member, Board of Revenue, for decision on the question of limitation. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, however, dismissed the revision petition on 1‑5‑1990, holding the same to be barred h 17 days. Dissatisfied by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed Writ Petition which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20‑6‑1992, passed by the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal against the order. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the first order passed by the learned Collector, rejecting the suit on the ground that it was deficiently stamped for the purposes of court‑fee was void and could be assailed in constitutional jurisdiction without the bar of limitation. It was further submitted that if the basic order was void and illegal the subsequent orders based thereon would be of no legal consequence. It was argued that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, decided the revision petition on merits without any abjection from the learned counsel for the contesting respondent in regard to the question of limitation, therefore the delay if any in filing the revision petition stood impliedly condoned. It was lastly submitted that the petitioner who succeeded in the decision of the suit on merits could not be non‑suited by an objection raised by respondent No.4 for the first time in the writ jurisdiction. Leave is granted in this case to consider the above‑noted contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. AA./A‑1160/S Leave granted.